Science Continues Proving Me Right

Chicks dig dominant men (at least for hot sex). Men with low voices are perceived as more dominant. Hence, you should take up smoking to give your voice that rich, deep, gravelly timbre that make chicks swoon. Isn’t a shortened lifespan worth the extra poon?

Men with a deep, masculine voices are seen as more dominant by other men but a man’s own dominance – perceived or actual – does not affect how attentive he is to his rivals’ voices. His own dominance does however influence how he rates his competitors’ dominance: the more dominant he thinks he is, the less dominant he rates his rival’s voice.

Faces of brown-eyed men were rated more dominant than those of blue-eyed men, even when their eyes weren’t brown.

The effect, which didn’t hold for female faces, may have something to do with the shape of brown-eyed men’s faces, said study researcher Karel Kleisner of Charles University in Prague. On average, brown-eyed men had broader chins and mouths, larger noses, more closely spaced eyes and larger eyebrows than blue-eyed men.

Ever notice how closely spaced the eyes are on criminal thugs and stupid people? It’s a telltale sign that a person is probably not very trustworthy. And, yes, ugly people really are more criminally inclined than better looking people. You CAN judge a book by its cover, Virginia!

Naturally, one wonders why blue eyes — and thus less masculine faces — evolved in men. Perhaps in northern climes, where blue eyes predominate, there was selection for more cooperative males who could put aside strutting displays for the sake of reliably providing for the community and the family during long, cold winters. Or maybe it’s just a vestige of the sexual selection for very fair women with blue eyes.

If you’re having trouble getting a date, French researchers suggest that picking the right soundtrack could improve the odds. Women were more prepared to give their number to an ‘average’ young man after listening to romantic background music, according to research that appears today in the journal Psychology of Music.

I slap on some Metallica — from the Kill Em All album — to get girls to leave my place after sex.

In her provocative new book,The Beauty Bias: The Injustice of Appearance in Law and Life, Stanford law professor Deborah Rhode argues that workers deserve legal protection against appearance-based discrimination unless their looks are directly relevant to their job performance. […]

Volumes of psychological research have shown that unattractive people are assumed to be less intelligent, less capable and less trustworthy. Almost from birth, infants stare longer at faces that adults rate as attractive.

No doubt Deborah Rhode is a raving lunatic equalist femicunt. But she’s right that people treat the ugly worse than they treat the pretty. Where she goes off the rails is in her solution to the “problem”. Does anyone think this isn’t the endgame when “anti-discrimination” became the religion of the USA in the mid-20th century? It was only a matter of time before those who argued against discriminating based on race — an immutable human characteristic — realized that it was the next logical step to justifiably argue against discrimination based on looks — a mostly immutable human characteristic. (Fatties are exempt from playing the immutability card.)

In fact, most facially ugly people really can’t do a thing about their unfortunate condition. In a “fair” world, anti-ugly discrimination would be outlawed, and the ugly would receive some recompense for their suffering.

This is why I am a true believer in the freedom of association. I knew that the eternal egalitarian quest for “fairness” would inevitably lead to the absurd totalitarian state we see unfolding all around us today. The only way it could be stopped was by rejecting its first principles — namely, by insisting that people have a right to associate with whomever they please. Equalists need to come to grips with the fact that life is not fair, that some human beings really are worth more than others, and that the constant pounding of square pegs into round holes is, in the long run, neither good for the peg nor the hole.

Scientists say being fat can be bad for the bedroom, especially if you’re a woman.

In a new study, European researchers found obese women had more trouble finding a sexual partner than their normal-weight counterparts, though the same wasn’t true for obese men, and were four times as likely to have an unplanned pregnancy. Fat men reported a higher rate of erectile dysfunction. […]

Obese women were 30 percent less likely than normal-weight women to have had a sexual partner in the last year. In comparison, there was little difference among obese men and normal-weight men as to whether they found a sexual partner.

This should disprove the notion (propounded most often by Satoshi Kanazawa at Psychology Today) that women do all the choosing in the dating market. In fact, they don’t. Men actively choose against dating and fucking fat chicks, old chicks, and, in some cases, single moms.

Previous studies have found similar trends, but researchers were surprised by the discrepancy they found between the genders as to how excess weight affects peoples’ sex lives.

“Maybe women are more tolerant of tubby husbands than men are of tubby wives,” said Kaye Wellings, a professor of sexual and reproductive health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and one of the BMJ study authors.

Women don’t care as much about looks as men do. Cue the Drudge red siren.

The researchers found that obese women were less likely to ask for birth control services, and thus, four times more likely to accidentally get pregnant. Pregnant fat women and their babies also faced a higher risk of complications and death than normal-weight women.

“Accidentally” my ass. Fat chicks know that they have fewer chances than slim chicks to bed a man, so when the opportunity arises, they take full advantage to fill their slovenly, bloated wombs with a reason for existence. My advice to low self esteem men with dumpster diving issues: don that schlong before you impale a whale.

“The idea is if you walk into a room and there are 50 people there, you can’t talk to everyone. So whom do you choose to talk to first? You could talk to the most attractive person or you could see whom others are already interacting with. If you’re a female and all the other women are just talking to 10 men, the other 40 aren’t potentially good mates. It would seem it’s a cognitive short-cut.”

One of the best things a guy can do for his game is to go out with a female friend. Instruct her to smile a lot and laugh at your lame jokes.

About 16 percent of Americans between the ages of 14 and 49 are infected with genital herpes, making it one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases, U.S. health officials said on Tuesday… women were nearly twice likely as men to be infected, according to an analysis by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 21 percent of women were infected with genital herpes, compared to only 11.5 percent of men.

Twice as many women as men have genital herpes. This could only happen if a smaller group of infected men is giving the gift of their infectious love to a larger group of women. Looks like female hypergamy is conclusively proved.

But while it’s clear that marriage is profoundly connected to health and well-being, new research is increasingly presenting a more nuanced view of the so-called marriage advantage. Several new studies, for instance, show that the marriage advantage doesn’t extend to those in troubled relationships, which can leave a person far less healthy than if he or she had never married at all. One recent study suggests that a stressful marriage can be as bad for the heart as a regular smoking habit. And despite years of research suggesting that single people have poorer health than those who marry, a major study released last year concluded that single people who have never married have better health than those who married and then divorced.

All of which suggests that while Farr’s exploration into the conjugal condition pointed us in the right direction, it exaggerated the importance of the institution of marriage and underestimated the quality and character of the marriage itself. The mere fact of being married, it seems, isn’t enough to protect your health. Even the Healthy Marriage Initiative makes the distinction between “healthy” and “unhealthy” relationships when discussing the benefits of marriage. “When we divide good marriages from bad ones,” says the marriage historian Stephanie Coontz, who is also the director of research and public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, “we learn that it is the relationship, not the institution, that is key.”

What this says is that men can get all the benefits of a good marriage within an unmarried relationship. So what was the point of getting married again? Oh yeah, right… to keep the cogs firmly ensconced in the gears of the grinding globocorporate machine.

Giving women the right to vote significantly changed American politics from the very beginning. Despite claims to the contrary, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue, and these effects continued growing as more women took advantage of the franchise. Similar changes occurred at the federal level as female suffrage led to more liberal voting records for the state’s U.S. House and Senate delegations. In the Senate, suffrage changed voting behavior by an amount equal to almost 20 percent of the difference between Republican and Democratic senators. Suffrage also coincided with changes in the probability that prohibition would be enacted and changes in divorce laws. We were also able to deal with questions of causality by taking advantage of the fact that while some states voluntarily adopted suffrage, others where compelled to do so by the Nineteenth Amendment. The conclusion was that suffrage dramatically changed government in both cases. Accordingly, the effects of suffrage we estimate are not reflecting some other factor present in only states that adopted suffrage. […]

More work remains to be done on why women vote so differently, but our initial work provides scant evidence that it is due to self-interest arising from their employment by government. The only evidence that we found indicated that the gender gap in part arises from women’s fear that they are being left to raise children on their own (Lott and Kenny 1997). If this result is true, the continued breakdown of the family and higher divorce rates imply growing political conflicts between the sexes.

Yes, women’s suffrage really did herald the end days of America. The result of giving women the vote has been an ever-increasing nanny state funded on the backs of increasingly sex-dispossessed betas (dispossessed from banging women during their prime years). The elevation of diversity as a moral value and the flooding of the country with incompatible third world immigrants has no doubt been a secondary consequence of suffrage for women, who naturally bring their feminine sensibilities, for better or (more usually) for worse, to the polls. This is why I have argued that the next step in this national devolution toward mindless compassion is the creation of armies of cads. Men want sex, and will do whatever it takes to get it, whether that be good or ill for society.

More American women are choosing not to have children than three decades ago, according to a new report.

Nearly 20 percent of older women do not have children, compared to 10 percent in the 1970s, the Pew Research Center said.

It’s possible the procreative pendulum will naturally swing back to replacement rates, but for now the economic and cultural empowerment of women has de facto rendered their wombs barren. The fulfillment of their demands has been the harbinger of their own annihilation. I think the hipsters would call that irony.

For Israeli women, going on vacation means more sex and lots of touristy activities – whether they are with their partners or not. Even so, if the overseas trip involves intense physical activity, the women reported no significant improvement in their sex lives.

Such are the findings of a new study of the sexual behavior of vacationing Israeli women, conducted by the Department of Hotel and Tourism Management at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

If you’ve got a girlfriend, and she’s going on vacation by herself, odds she will cheat rise 50%.

If she’s taking this vacation in a Latin country, odds rise 75%.

If she says you don’t have to drop her off at the airport, odds rise 90%.

If she bought a new bikini for the trip, odds rise 120%.

If she’s staying in a hostel for the duration of the trip, packed some spare rubbers, and routinely emails some guy named Jacque who runs a tour guide group, odds rise 1,000%.

Poria views this phenomenon as part of the ritual that accompanies the tourism experience: Just as tourists feel the need to tour the museums and famous sites in the cities they visit, even though they have no real inclination to do so, “having sex is sometimes also perceived as compulsory.”

Also known as the “ovulatory ritual”, the “hybrid vigor ritual”, the “anti-slut deniability ritual”, and the “expert from afar ritual”.

Business trips, on the other hand, were portrayed in the study as inappropriate for much sexual activity, since they are not perceived as free time that presents an opportunity for such activity in an anonymous environment.

The interviewees explained that sexual permissiveness is impossible when they are accompanied by their colleagues from work.

Two new studies find that women may be genetically predisposed to cheating on their partners.

One study published today by the University of California, Los Angeles Center on Behavior, Culture, and Evolution and the University of New Mexico says women have evolved to cheat on their mates during the most fertile part of their cycle, but only when those mates are less sexually attractive than other men.

The study in the Journal of Hormones and Behavior examined 38 coeds from one large, unidentified U.S. university.

“We found that women were most attracted to men other than their primary partner when they were in the high fertility phase of the menstrual cycle,” said Dr. Martie Haselton, a UCLA researcher. “That’s the day of ovulation and several days beforehand.”

Small sample size, but still. My advice to men who don’t want to risk a cuckolding:

If she understands in no uncertain terms that cheating will guarantee she loses you, she will think less with her clit and more with her head.

The other precautionary measure you could take, besides being better looking than 99% of other men, is to make sure you are around and fucking her hard during the ovulation part of her cycle. If she denies you access during this part of her cycle, DUMP HER POST HASTE. You have just been served a huge, unfurled red flag.

Or you could skip marriage and kids, and just enjoy the ride of multiple, tacitly open relationships.

Fat chicks get laid less than their thinner counterparts??? Maybe their odds will increase if they focus on the blue eyed, high voice guys.

In fact, I say we make that a new law. You know, for equalization purposes because life should be fair. Guys with blue eyes take the fat chicks, and we guys with brown eyes get the thin ones. Then everybody’s happy! Well, me at least.

Faces of brown-eyed men were rated more dominant than those of blue-eyed men, even when their eyes weren’t brown.

What does this even mean?

I know exceptions prove rules, etc. etc., but on at least half of my vacation trips no one in my group has made out, much less sexed up, someone.

And what idiot would ever have thought fat girls got as much play as thin girls? My one overly-voluptuous friend did use to get more than the rest of us, but it was usually the last man standing at the bar and was more of her giving bjs than having sex.

LOL. It makes perfect sense that the women went shopping once they had access to Congress’s Purse.

As to the dominant brown eyes, it makes sense except for more pussy. In my experience, a few of my friends with blue eyes have pulled girls based on that fact alone…. or were at least initially approached by girls based on that fact.

White knighting comes form an old and noble traditon of protecting virtuous women. Today, most white knighitng is done by guys who forget the part about her being “virtuous.” An old-school white knighter would still behead his adulterous wife, for example, not ‘support her’ like today’s BOTMs do.

— From the No Duh! files: fat chicks have trouble getting laid.

You have summoned the Kraken.

— It’s possible the procreative pendulum will naturally swing back to replacement rates

It’s practically a law of nature that it will. Everythign in nature has its ebb and flow. Except if powers that be interfere with and disincentivise a fertility rebound.

— Faces of brown-eyed men were rated more dominant than those of blue-eyed men

I’d make an exception for a subset of blue-eyed men who have dark hair (the “black Irish”) and blue eyed men with icy, piercing gazes, like Anthony Hopkins.

— It’s a myth that marriage is good for a man’s health.

I’m on board with many of the Chauteau’s antimarriage points, given today’s realities. But never-married men past a certain age do have a major challenge to avoid coming off as losers, and inevitably feeling like losers. It’s a bit of an all-or-none: a forty-something single guy can be cool if he masters teh whole look and demeanor of an alpha player. But most guys will find it a challenge. For those guys, a majority, marriage is the ultimate social proof.

— I slap on some Metallica — from the Kill Em All album — to get girls to leave my place after sex.

“Tall dark and handsome” does have a grounding in what really does more tend to attract women. Dark eyes such as mine definitely, and tall. For handsome more read “edgie looking”. Or socially smooth and dominant looking. Girls map “handsome” onto their perceptions of those things. They’re encouraged to do so by Hollywood, but I think storytelling in the Western cannon before that.

Whereas men of all races tend to find relatively lighter skin tones in women to be more attractive, research with large sample sizes IIRC has shown. The palette is different in different races but the direction is the same.

Superprotestantism has nothing to do with Catholicism versus Protestantism, it is a movement equally active within the Catholic church.

Another name would be liberal progressivism. Superprotestantism merely highlights its fanatical religious roots in a way uncomfortable for practitioners, because it makes clear that the west is theocratic.

White knighting comes form an old and noble traditon of protecting virtuous women.

Well virtuous and higher status originally. Often much higher status. Was a conceivable ticket for winning such an unobtainable woman’s heart (if generally not her gina), when performed by an up and comer, starting from lower ranks than here. yes a rising knight. Setting his sights on a girl or woman or noble rank, in classic chivalrous tales.

Note these were created or encouraged by the Church to sublimate the urges of men of war, knights etc., with hopes of less intrafaith warfare. (Unless of course Rome had a dog in the fight.)

Higher status then sort of morphed into “or really, really pretty” plus virtuous, a girl that’s rising herself, or ought to be able to, with the right man. Who proves him self by white knightly risk taking on her behalf.

The perversion of all this is no risk gestures of gallantry for just any girl w/out regard to her reputation, refinement, or femininity. (Cause all women are equal and really rather better than we naturally violent and tending towards oppression men.) Wretch.

Brown eyes — red herring. The point is that brown eyes are *correlated* with the masculine features. But just as eyes, blues can have a special appeal. I lucked out, got semitic features and dark hair from my dad, deep blue eyes from my mom’s English/Irish roots.

Men who marry are usually healthy to begin with, that is why that stat has always bothered me. Do you see many marriage minded women swooning after schizophrenics? Or lifelong criminals? Maybe as a badboy fuck, but healthy men are usually more successful, and end up married.

The marriage is a result of health, not the cause. Men smart enough to understand this avoid marriage and live just as long or longer. Except me, I fully intend to die in the throws of passion with some nubile young girl while I snort coke off of her friend’s backside.

Nordegren walks away with 750 million USD and sole physical custody of the kids.

How many more times will this need to happen to guys before guys figure out that marriage just is not a smart move? How many guys will continue to give into marriage just for the sake of social conformity at the expense of everything they’ve ever worked for??

Reminds me of a waspish career girl I knew in Richmond who was screwing a latin lover guy she met in a downtown disco. I was dating her roomate. Career girl and her girlfriends were always complaining about latin lover guy because he was so sketchy, unreliable, unavailable etc., but this girl was gaga over him. She was making him use a rubber and he said that she was only demanding the rubber because she was sleeping with other people. She finally relented and had unprotected sex with him. Yep, he gave her herpes.

One more. I was dating a girl in Richmond who it turns out had herpes. She told me before hand and I declined to have sex. But we were out one night at an all night club and she went up to a guy who had girls all over him and gave him a big hug. I asked her who it was and she said, oh, that’s the guy that gave me herpes.

Tsk. The ones with game are. Or money. Just like every other guy. I can name a bunch of guys in my social circle that are good looking and strike out constantly. I’m a fairly ugly guy but I just do not give a shit when it comes to women. It works. If I were fat I’d be an even bigger ahole.

However, the bit about the sole custody is not quite right as according to the article though she has sole custody “Woods..will be able to see the kids for up to half of each week.” Assuming see means have stay with him, then it’s pretty close to 50/50, will be interesting to see how much time of that he takes.

Because it’s the noble thing to do. It comes to men naturally. Unless, of course, you’re a virtual-Gamer who puts on the asshole-Alpha act online but doesn’t actually try this stuff in the real world. You know who you are.

@Tim
“My divorced friends will never recover and they’ll never bounce back. Only the most successful and well-connected alpha can brush off a divorce and keep on scoring and breeding.”
They’ll be fine, especially if they are 40, give it time.

“One other thing – The traveling girl having sex theory is absolutely true. I don’t know *any* women who travel alone (or with a girlfriend) who don’t come back with sex stories.”

Now you do. Two separate trips abroad to countries famous for local men seducing American women, and no sex for me. Came back with honor intact and ego inflated. I found the notion that I’d put out just because was American to be infuriating.

Does anyone think this isn’t the endgame when “anti-discrimination” became the religion of the USA in the mid-20th century?

Harrison Bergeron.

Some of the pieces of this grab-bag post seem to have been guest-written.

The brown-eyed thing is the only part that’s obviously ridiculous – because attractiveness is subjective. The rest are pretty well-known to regular readers. All these studies are a little dubious, becuase they’re *social* science, but still, good to see cracks appearing in the edifice.

@dragnet
I don’t know much about US custody and access terms so am not in a position to comment. If that’s right that she could veto it without consequence, then that’s really awful. Even if he is a dog who shags skanky hos unprotected.

Fatties can’t find love lol I say stop giving them handicapped licenses and make them walk, or make fat cities, a concentration camp of sorts where only fatties are allowed and they can’t leave until they drop to acceptable BMI. In there the fatties have two choices: they can continue to live their overfeeding ways or change habits and drop weight. To finance this all drugs should be legalized and taxes, serving 3 purposes at the same time: Get rid of junkies that are too stupid to try drugs, free space in prisons and save money, and generate money with taxes.

Fatties that choose to loose weight and improve get to ostracize lazy fatties as much as they want, without repercussions. Ideally this concentration camp would be somewhere in the forests, so that lazy fatties are out and about grazing on highly processed foods that are hidden around the park. Once a month self-improvement fatties go out and collect all the grazing fatties for head counts; they can be as cruel as they want. The public will watch this as entertainment.

Also a minimum fat loss of 2% per month will be establish, and those that try and don’t make it will be banished for a month to the forest. After a month they get to try again.

After at least one year from exile, once former fatties get to normal BMIs, they are released to society, where they will be considered second class citizens until they have a showing six pack for men and a completely flat stomach for women. 2 months to accomplish this.

After this they will be in probation for a year, after which, if they keep their six pack or flat stomach, they are home free. If they fail during probation they get exiled for another year.

I’m smiling from ear to ear. But the evidence will never be enough to get the femicunts to remove their heads from their asses.

Almost from birth, infants stare longer at faces that adults rate as attractive.

As I was walking by a mother and her child yesterday, the child made some sign and then the mother told me she called me beautiful. After ignoring the child a bit, I returned the compliment in her language.

“ni shi hen mei”

fucking her hard during the ovulation part of her cycle.

I did this to one of the girls I was banging before my long summer trip. But after I got back in the country and banged her once, I realized I was tired of her so I deleted her number. I think she’s stalking me now.

It occurs to me that maybe the exorbitant amount has somethign to do with shit going on behind the scenes that we may have no clue about. Maybe he gave her an incurable STI or something like that. Still isn’t worth a three-quarters of a billion dollar settlement, but it would be easier to understand…

Here’s something else to put in the CR science data banks, inasmuch as it jibes with the nihilist view:

There are no oppressed. There are no patriarchies. There are no conservatives. There are no liberals. There are no progressives. There is no feminist utopia. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multihelical dominion of DNA. Genes, neurons, glia, electrochemical signaling, enzymes, mitochondria, and spiritless matter. It is the universal system of reproduction which determines the totality of life on this planet.

There’s a theory that the Pill changes what a girl finds attractive; screws up the pheromones or such.http://tinyurl.com/6kwkz6
It also may tend to illustrate why some women start cheating on their husbands. They meet while she’s on the pill but she eventually goes off it when they’re married. Then, her little hamster wheel changes.

Two new studies find that women may be genetically predisposed to cheating on their partners.

I think feminist evo psych researchers have been madly doing research in the last number of years to find this, to counter the earlier and continuing “males are naturally polygamous, females hypergamous” conclusion within the field, and hell as traditional wisdom through the ages, resurfacing now from feminist efforts to ridicule.

Of course when women are given complete or nearly complete freedom from consequences both financial (see feminist pushed no fault divorce laws, fifty fifty splits of the wealth he earned no matter what, she always gets the kids despite being a cheating bitch, with sky high as an after tax percentage of his income child support=also stealth alimony, and so on) and cultural (divorce is always his fault, with today the mantra that he was “emotionally abuse” when in fact the divorcing wife more often has been to a much greater extent, and so on), then yeah their cheating goes way up. However this is a very unnatural situation. All on the backs of men, by force of law and feminist ideology.

Which should be overturned down the barrel of a gun, or many guns, if need be. Oh yeah, literally.

You touched on one possible explanation at the end of the post. Men with blue eyes in a mixed eye color environment would have an advantage in detecting cuckolding.

Also, according to this article , blue eyes are considered a positive for men and women. It suggests this is because pupil size is easier to gauge and therefore sincerity of attraction.

Here is another take on the same study you mentioned. Interestingly the author included a picture with blue eyes because it was “not as easy to find a nice close up of a male brown eye on google…surprising”. I think this confirms the theory that blue eyes are attractive for men.

Ugh, I had to sit next to this like really fat guy on the subway yesterday, *shudder*. I mean, fat people are pretty disgusting, you know? can we please tax them? Theyre bankrupting health-care systems, like, all across the world.

Theyre 100% responsible for their obesity, you know? I love it when fat people tell me “I have a slow metabolism.” metabolism is the rate of the chemical reactions in your body. The rate is based on your activity level, totally, so basically its like saying “Its not my fault because I am lazy and dont exercise.”

Oh god and I love it when fatties say theyve tried everything and cant lose weight. Ya everything but to stop shoving food down your throat or getting off your fat ass once in a while.

Fatties should be strapped down and starved until they are healthy because they obviously are too incompetent to take care of themselves. I mean, it seems like theyre ‘slower’ than the average person. Sorry, I just had to rant after a long day.

One of the best things a guy can do for his game is to go out with a female friend. Instruct her to smile a lot and laugh at your lame jokes.

Or better, how about a soul mate lots younger lover you’re living with, who gets into co-conspiring w/you to game and pick up even younger ones, who are or can be lured into being bi curious. A lot because conspiratorially gamed girl is really drawn to the vibe between you, and well yeah, that social proof thing, in spades.

But this is a perception thing. Just because guys with dark eyes may be scarier in photographs, it doesn’t transfer to real-world congruency. Instead, blue eyed men are considered attractive and they can be just as dominant as anyone else (aside from by product of ruling the world for a couple of centuries leading to cultural SWPL suicide).

Women get wowed by the music that was in vogue
when they started becoming sexual. This could
be managed if you know a woman’s age and your
music. history.

My wife (I am widowed) varied in body weight,
quite a bit. She claimed she got better
service – and questions from others on
what to buy in supermarkets – when thin.
Fat is interpreted as stupid. Very likely,
there is some real correlation.

Women’s right to vote:
The general fix, again:
No representation without (net) taxation.
This would weed out the government-huggers
of both sexes.

Travel and StayCations:
Of course. They even advertise,
“what plays in Vegas stays in Vegas”
This applies to both men and women,
and not just to sex. Being away from
your peers and family takes the lid off,
you can do whatever you want.

Marriage good for men’s health?
The causality is more plausibly reversed.
Sick men rarely get married.

He’s comparing what CH calls pretty lies (liberal dogma) to religious beliefs and those that most fervently believe in and spread these beliefs (media, academia, schools etc.) to the old clergy. An example of a similarity is fear of being unPC and heretical among unbelievers in religion/pretty lies.

Several new studies, for instance, show that the marriage advantage doesn’t extend to those in troubled relationships, which can leave a person far less healthy than if he or she had never married at all. One recent study suggests that a stressful marriage can be as bad for the heart as a regular smoking habit.

No shit, Sherlock. Why anyone would think different about this is incomprehensible.

I don’t know much about US custody and access terms so am not in a position to comment. If that’s right that she could veto it without consequence, then that’s really awful. Even if he is a dog who shags skanky hos unprotected.

First I saw and liked your reaction to the money she’s getting in the Tiger Woods case. (It may be a special case involving his voluntary decision to go near half in light of his prenup. But due to advice from lawyers, PR people that sucking up to women/white knighting men (thick among golf viewers I’d guess) is worth more in future return of endorsements to him than this $750. but that’s in this poisoned feminist environment we’re in now, where the public has been sold on the new fangled feminist notions that 1) alpha super successful male cheating when he’s hardly deserting his family is such an outrageous social and moral sin (whereas it never had been not so long ago, for all history, western and otherwise); and 2) the even more recent feminist ideological notion that marriage is automatically a 50/50 economic partnership, in division on divorce and wifely deserts, if not in any required actual contributions by the partners. which is outrageous.

But both have become not just the law when no prenup exists or is enforced, but also the moral belief now of most Americans.

Men must rebel against this crap. First by refusing to marry. Not even w/prenups. That’s been how I’ve in fact lived my life since my no kids and relatively fortunately timed divorce. Keeps female passion up much better to not marry. marriage creates too much security for females in this day and age. too one way. prenups always subject to changing laws and court precedent erosion in this environment.

Marriage in 2010 in the Anglosphere is for women. Not for men w/options.

The way visitation rights for men awared by courts really works is not exactly that there are no consequences eventually for a woman ignoring them, always or often. But it tends to work that way in practice for non rich men.

Takes lots and lots of court hearings before they’ll do anything. It’s either the law or established judical precendent in most states to never reduce her child support = also stealth alimony as a result. She can be fined or jailed in theory eventually for violating court orders, but the hurdles and burdens of proof on men here are great. He has to look perfect; she has to look near unfit mother. Plus her lawyer will often advise making up tails of his child abuse (when women do that a lot more often in fact, but that’s not widely known including to most judges due to feminism/chivalry/pretty lies.) Often she’ll have made such claims during the initial custody hearing. They have been unproven, but are overhanging.

The ultimate sanction is a court switching who has custody, but hugely expensive in legal fees, with all the presumptions against the man, created by the current hugely misandrous environment.

I especially don’t think any sane man in Britain should get married if he makes upper middle class or above money, and she doesn’t on her own or soon won’t what with slacking off or kids, and then not returning to work forever even with help at home.

Because Brit courts completely disregard prenups, and since 2000 have effectively adopted the 50/50 rule on slit of marital assets.

Note that’s 50/50 of what was earned by both and remains in wealth during the marriage, not brought into it from prior earnings or inherited etc.

See the Paul McCarthy case. Or the whats his name actor case. Or some other ones. McCarthy’s wife being particularly undeserving. well they all are, all wives of this kind of split.

I’m simply not subjecting myself to it period end of story.

So Brit men with money or prospects shouldn’t marry period. Idiotic too. Literally.

But never-married men past a certain age do have a major challenge to avoid coming off as losers, and inevitably feeling like losers. It’s a bit of an all-or-none: a forty-something single guy can be cool if he masters teh whole look and demeanor of an alpha player. But most guys will find it a challenge. For those guys, a majority, marriage is the ultimate social proof.

Yes and no. This is a tricky one. I’m 40 and single and never married, no kids. I’ve three friends who’ve been married and divorced, they all have one kid each. All three are on the hook for child support for eighteen years. I can say with absolute certainty that if you look into their eyes, you are looking into they eyes of broken, defeated men.

The point is, and I thought CH made it very clear, single men who’ve never been married are actually much happier than men who’ve been married and divorced, in aggregate. My divorced friends will never recover and they’ll never bounce back. Only the most successful and well-connected alpha can brush off a divorce and keep on scoring and breeding.

Married men, in a healthy relationship are the happiest. Single men -cads- are the next most happiest. The most miserable of all are divorced men.

“Note that’s 50/50 of what was earned by both and remains in wealth during the marriage, not brought into it from prior earnings or inherited etc.”
Actually, it’s not so cut and dried.
A male friend of mine who got divorced last year, it was a pretty nasty divorce so it was in the wringer in the courts. His wife wanted the proceeds of a property she owned pre marriage excluded. However, as the sale had only finalised shortly after marriage, literally like a week (we have quite protracted sales processes on houses), the proceeds from it were deemed to be part of the marital assets and that money from it was split 50/50.

Incidentally, I’d say that celebrity divorces aside, most upper middle class men will marry someone with assets of their own (either inherited, earnt or both), they’d marry a 6 with that over a 9 or 10 from a lower class.

@ Doug
To clarify my post, when I said upper middle class, I meant actual upper middle class men (regardless of income) as opposed to someone earning a lot of money. On the whole, they are not going to marry say someone like Cheryl Cole, no matter what she looks like. Not on a first marriage anyway.

Obviously, many people who aren’t upper middle class are earning upper middle class levels of money, and my comment wasn’t in regards to them.

make sure you are around and fucking her hard during the ovulation part of her cycle. If she denies you access during this part of her cycle, DUMP HER POST HASTE.

I have to wonder how many of you guys actually memorize womens’ menstrual cycles, down to the ovulation and luteal phases. Our menses are our business, unless we’re trying to have a kid with you or we use timing as birth control. I can’t imagine any bf asking to map out where the current location of my egg is.

I know quite a lot about this Lily. More in the states than Britain, though I’ve read up some on British divorce law in practice for comparative purposes. I’m a lawyer, though never a divorce lawyer (far from it) and only practiced for a few years, then went into more City type stuff, to translate.

The way 50/50 works in practice in the states is that it is pretty cut and dried when it’s clear what wealth comes from where in “community property” states. About half of them and most of the big money coastal ones. Less clear in the others, though they’ve tended to move in the community property direction.

Britain would largely be in the later category. In fact you don’t really have a 50/50 division since 2000 even, but it’s usually worked out to end up that way, esp. when lots of money is involved.

I think Britain’s still working out through it’s courts just how it should work in the details.

(I can tell you that that result cutting against the wife including a property certainly not in anyway earned during the marriage but only a few weeks into finally closed on selling would be very unlikely in a US court even in a non community property state.)

I have to wonder how many of you guys actually memorize womens’ menstrual cycles

I know for each of my three current girlfriends, all of whom know about each other. (Well the three or four weeks into her one depending on how counting doesn’t know about long distance emotional but not physical one, but she knows and wants to be more of a fling anyway, before my gf and I try setting her up with some real good prospects).

If you don’t think a girl’s cycle effects her emotions and her horniness, then you’ve repressed a lot about women, don’t know much about them, or are a raging feminist.

Bleeding is rather obvious w/a girl you’re sexing you know. Besides my girls all tell me when I ask.

Guys, the article DOESN’T say that having blue eyes is less attractive than having brown eyes. It says that the faces that guys with brown eyes tend to have are more attractive than the faces of guys with blue eyes. I assume they verified this by changing actual eye color in photos when performing the study.

If you lift weights, eat lots of protein and get your vitamins (like magnesium and D3 which are testosterone boosters) your jaw and face will broaden and become more angular. Problem solved.

” This could only happen if a smaller group of infected men is giving the gift of their infectious love to a larger group of women. Looks like female hypergamy is conclusively proved.”

You might want to check your facts here. You are making an assumption that for every sexual incident with an infected partner, the male and female are at the same percentage of risk. This is not true. Women catch it faster than men.

@ Doug
As you know, I’m no supporter of alimony. But then I’m not a supporter of women giving up their careers and not earning their own money (although some commentators on this blog seem to be, although they also complain about divorce theft). I’m in a position to not have to work full time if I have children but this is due to something I was aware of when I was younger and made career choices accordingly i.e. I chose to work really hard at a certain field and earn a lot of money, invest it so that I would have enough to not work for a few years (just as my sister did, though in her case she trained to be a doctor and become a GP so that whilst she wouldn’t earn so much money, she would have a job with family-friendly hours). I consider we’re lucky to be from a family who think like this (women in my family were at Cambridge 100 years ago and have on the whole had income of their own), most 20 year old girls aren’t. But I digress.

And I do agree that divorce laws favour women over men. But I don’t think it’s institutionally sexist (and again I’m only speaking in England based on my reading and what I see around me, I’m not a lawyer though many of my family are and I don’t know anything about the US), it just happens that men on the whole because historically they tend to have more money and not be the main or joint caregiver suffer more.

@dragnet
There must be. Not necessarily just on STIs though given the sheer amount of unprotected sex he had with so many different partners would have given her a massive risk (and looking up genital herpes earlier after reading his post I saw something like women are 4 times more likely to get genital herpes having sex with an infected partner than men plus we know about aids etc), but maybe she has information on him that would ruin his career or more, the article says the agreement states no talking, even after he’s dead.

If it were cut & dried that she was legally entitled to half his money and if she were as reported a goldigger, then it would seem odd for her to cut off other earning opportunities and agree not to move home to Sweden etc. There’s a lot more to this than meets the eye and we’ll most likely never find out.

Have you any idea what she’s ‘entitled’ to in the strict letter of the law? I believe they live in Florida?

@ Doug
“(I can tell you that that result cutting against the wife including a property certainly not in anyway earned during the marriage but only a few weeks into finally closed on selling would be very unlikely in a US court even in a non community property state.)”
She used the money towards the purchase of their marital home, so maybe that was why it wasn’t excluded as she requested, unfortunately, I don’t know the technicalities and don’t want to ask him, it’s sensitive, it was a really nasty divorce which he is still recovering from.

Hey Ross, isn’t it part for a Dread part 2?
I have used all from Dread, including cheating, she just doesn’t know about it yet. Oh and Im going to take a student exchange program for 6 months in about 6 months. I haven’t told her. Should I tell her like 2 weeks prior to leaving? It’s what I’m thinking of doing. Sparing the drama and increasing the sex. Possibly make her wait for me while I bang all the pussy I can get

But I don’t think it’s institutionally sexist (and again I’m only speaking in England based on my reading and what I see around me

I do. Including in the case of Britain. Oh there’s a pretence and also language that’s non sexist, but the reality is it’s very sexist. Women’s post divorce welfare is maximized all on the backs of men, and in a totally unfair no fault way. Little is more galling to a man to have his wife leave him after affairs or her clear desire to do that even if undiscovered while married (and us divorce lawyers often say that most women seeking divorce have had affairs that more than half the time their husbands don’t know about), and still get under no fault laws what will amount when the smoke clears and the house is considered more than half his wealth if married for any substantial time, often child support = also stealth alimony that in the us w/two kids in a higher tax state and an upper middle class income usually means more than half his after tax income, regardless of how much she may earn (really), and so on.

The divorce laws are MASSIVELY unfair now. You don’t think so because the media are so one sided favoring the female side and sob stories and so on, and half truths or mostly lies from divorcing women. Men have grown to think this is the natural order of things; women too. In your country too. Some things we’re worse in, some you are. Some states ehre aren’t nearly so bad to men. E.g. Texas. Still not fair and balanced, but better.

High earning or men who can expect on their career path to be high earning shouldn’t get married in Brtain now period.

Risky too in America w/prenup. Lunacy here without one.

btw I agree with you about women working post marriage. Maybe when infants not, but not long after. W/help on child care, maybe part time work in her career before school, then full time again. STill no alimony nor stealth alimony in child support. She got to be supported by husband in whole or part while staying at home and slipping at bit from totally maxing out career. After she divorces him she’s giving him nothing in return, so no support for her. Including as included in today’s child support. Tough it’s considerably lower after tax in the UK as a percenage of his earnings.

i dont doubt the theory that 20% of men r fucking 80% of the women, but the herpes evidence doesnt constitute proof. a not unreasonable alt hypothesis to explain that outcome is that women are more susceptible to herpes infection.

Because it’s the noble thing to do. It comes to men naturally. Unless, of course, you’re a virtual-Gamer who puts on the asshole-Alpha act online but doesn’t actually try this stuff in the real world. You know who you are.

And to pull asshole game you need to be a certain kind of guy to really pull it off. I’ve never managed it for any length of time, it’s just not in me. Disdain and disinterest are one thing; real asshole game requires, ultimately, being an asshole.

What color of eyes do most of the white men in Hollywood have? I would rely on that study more than any other. Seeing as these are the guys who get the best pussy and seem to make women buy all those god awful magazines I see at the store.

I’m not saying the study isn’t right, but I’m pretty sure there are just as many blue eyed guys in Hollywood making girls around the world wet as there are guys with brown eyes who make them tingle.

Yep, you’re right, and I was a little judgmental, which is a huge weakness of mine -quick to judge. In fact, my friends who have gone through divorce hell are just fine now, and have moved on with their lives. They’ve sworn off marriage, but they haven’t sworn off women, of course. They do date, they do get out there, but there is no illusion of marital bliss anymore.

More proof for female preselection and the game techniques that spoof it:

This is my second, and I hope the last, post on the subject of injuries and female pre selection.

I had knee surgery 4 weeks ago. Soccer, running, plus the eventual bar fight got my anterior cruciate ligament broken. Monday was my first party since surgery. I went to watch a world cup match using shorts, to show the scars. The holes in the knee the surgeon opened for the pincers and camera are already closed, but I put bandages on them to give an impression of very recent surgery.

The larger cut from which he extracted the new ligament was also bandaged.

Girls actually came to talk with me about it. Knee surgery is absolutely male. Girls simply don’t do the stuff needed to break ligaments.

Obviously, it helps a lot to have strong legs, a side benefict of playing sports.

Jhbowden, nobody cares who you fuck (except latent homosexuals). Just don’t be a hypocrite about it.

I’m losing weight, and rather easily since I figured things out, but I don’t pick on fat people. I educate them.

Doing it myself, I understand that it is not easy to prevent the trigger, and really not easy to find out how to turn things back once they’ve gotten so far. I heard so much bullshit from hypocrites before I found out the truth that now, I’m admittedly, a bit angry about it.

I’ve long noticed that women swoon over deep voiced men. As an example, I”m forced to go to several boring staff meetings every week at my work. A lot of female coworkers in attendance. There are a couple guys there who have deep, sonorant voices, and when they speak, the women snap out of their daze and give the speaker their full attention.

Blue eyes and feminine features on men? I give you ladies and gentlemen, Rumor Willis. Also known as “Tater Head.” Demi Moore was hot, back in the day, and Bruce Willis the model of dominant masculinity. If they had sons, they’d be rolling in grand-kids by now.

As it is … Rumor Willis is the best looking of the daughters. Masculine features don’t go well with daughters, and there is a roughly 49% chance of daughters in any pregnancy. So grey/green/blue-eyed northern men have that going for them — no Rumor Willis type daughters.

” My advice to low self esteem men with dumpster diving issues: don that schlong before you impale a whale.”

That really did make me laugh out loud.

I wonder how many times formerly hot Kristie Alley’s cellulite jiggles every time her garden boy thrusts? Whats that they say back over in Arkansas? Soueee Pig!!!!

All kidding aside: the weight issues of people here in America because of our commute culture and our ‘phood’ is a drain on us in myriad ways. Its sad to see so many people with rolls of fat. This was a relatively trim nation back in the seventies and even into the eighties.

…It’s basically a robotic hand that you attach your fingers to, with it simulating the size, shape, weight and texture of whatever you’re interacting with on-screen. The most obvious non-porn use for this would be gaming, especially with a 3D display, although it looks too complicated and expensive to catch on as a mainstream peripheral.

“And to pull asshole game you need to be a certain kind of guy to really pull it off. I’ve never managed it for any length of time, it’s just not in me. Disdain and disinterest are one thing; real asshole game requires, ultimately, being an asshole.”

As Danny DeVito’s character said about acting in the film Get Shorty, “a true metamorphosis doesn’t take place, that wouldn’t be acting.”

“All kidding aside: the weight issues of people here in America because of our commute culture and our ‘phood’ is a drain on us in myriad ways. Its sad to see so many people with rolls of fat. This was a relatively trim nation back in the seventies and even into the eighties.”

It’s F’ing disgusting. Since poor fitness affects your mind as well as your body, it pains me to think how much our national mental capacity has diminished as a result of our widening waistlines.

It’s not just the fatness, it’s like we take no pride in our appearance in this country. Sure everybody wants to look like a Baywatch actor/actress, but so many people aren’t even putting in an effort.

Now people are playing “poor me” blaming the corn lobby and the TV ads that get their minds hooked on food. Well at some point you gotta just say no! and stop buying the products. Then the ads will stop because they aren’t making the food company money. You can’t ask corporate America to step in on your (large) behalf.

Z.
“All kidding aside: the weight issues of people here in America because of our commute culture and our ‘phood’ is a drain on us in myriad ways. Its sad to see so many people with rolls of fat. This was a relatively trim nation back in the seventies and even into the eighties.”

The pharmaceutical industry has a lot to answer for as well. I was in pretty good shape until I was told by various doctors, that I needed various drugs, to keep my mind straight. My last major weight gain was Clozaril which led to about 100 extra pounds. Most of the time I have been able to to work of the extra weight, but since I’m getting older the clozaril weight gain has been pretty difficult to lose.

Yes, I’m an easy mark for these “professionals.” Funny story, I was taking the Clozaril because I developed tardive dyskinesia from a drug called Geodon. I am getting smarter though, as I’m starting to realize most of these quacks should be lined up and shot.

Badger, where did you learn not to eat corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, or soy?

School? Probably not.
Parents? Probably not.

Where do you figure people are going to get the information in a way that is credible to them, so that they have a choice?

The only person I had to tell me anything different from my nutritionist was my grandmother. I thought she was outdated, and behind the times, and didn’t know what she was talking about. 14 years into my hypothyroid blow-up, I finally stumbled on Weston A. Price.

You know how many fat people you come across really have a choice by how many of them know who Weston A. Price is.

Theyre 100% responsible for their obesity, you know? I love it when fat people tell me “I have a slow metabolism.” metabolism is the rate of the chemical reactions in your body. The rate is based on your activity level, totally, so basically its like saying “Its not my fault because I am lazy and dont exercise.”

Oddly enough, insufficient levels of iodine DO lower levels of T3 and T4 causing a measurable drop in metabolism. This drop can be easily measured by taking the temperature of the person.

Oddly enough, Ren’s statement is completely, totally, factually incorrect. And admitted to be incorrect by conventional medicine. That is because Ren is an American, and thus a screaming loudmouth moron. A conventional, gullible, and above all MEAN, screaming loudmouth moron.

Of course, MANY MANY OTHER THINGS can also lower metabolism…. again, easily measured by taking the temperature of a person.

Will any brave “calorie in, calorie out” diet monkey get up on his hind legs and mouth off at me?

Maybe some fat people do all these things and still can’t make a significant dent.

But I doubt all of them do. Doubt it very much.

It takes willpower and sacrifice. There’s no magic, side-effect free pill yet. Yeah, it sucks. I used to eat anything I wanted to, go for a jog and lose 5 lbs. at will. Now it’s harder. So what. You can enjoy the pizza or the feeling of being in the shape you want.

another possibility is that a few women are doing all the sleeping .. but given that it is harder for a female to infect a male … as oppose to a male infecting a female .. the more likely scenario is that of a few very high partner count males.

Yet another scenario is that all males get to have more than one partner .. but we know that this is not the case hence we rule it out in favor of teh hypergamous one ..

Why don’t you just suggest someone take some proton-pump inhibitors to deal with their heartburn while you are at it? Just hand the loaded gun with the safety off to them…. but don’t forget to say it’s unloaded before you give it to them!

Do this because you are their “pal”. Maybe. But then again I don’t know. Could be.

Our menses are our business, unless we’re trying to have a kid with you or we use timing as birth control. I can’t imagine any bf asking to map out where the current location of my egg is.

If you are intimate with a guy on a regular basis, and he is moderately observant and remembers what he learned in his high school Health class, he will notice monthly swings. Even if you are extraordinarily even-tempered and your body temperature and fluid retention don’t change noticeably, and you are never intimate with him while having your period, if he cares he will notice that there is a time of the month you are never intimate with him.

On the other hand, if all your relationships are short-term, yeah, your fertility can be kept mysterious. But why would you want that?

Most people can start drinking 1% milk instead of whole, cut out candy bars and pizza, switch to unsweetened cereal, eat smaller portions and do an intense aerobic hour every other day. That’s not a million dollar movie star diet but it would help significantly.

First of all, you’re working out on the wrong kind of fuel, and headed for a meltdown. Bonus, you’re putting the cart before the horse.

People have to fix their nutrition before they can hope to deal with portion sizes in the long term. Your way, people lose weight and gain it back. The right way, people don’t get fat in the first place, or lose weight until they get to a natural comfortable size, and then and only then, they know how to work out a calorie deficit without killing themselves.

…and really, it takes no sacrifice. I don’t feel like I’m sacrificing anything at all. I eat whatever I want, whenever I want. I just happen to only like to eat once a day in the evenings (not for everybody, I’m African and Native American) and don’t like sweets much.

It took me more than 2 years of eating natural food to get to this point though.

Retard
I have personally measured the at-rest metabolic rate (ie O2 consumption) of hundreds of people. It will vary in the range of plus/minus 10% at most.
The important energy burn is from non-at-rest situations. And fat people burn a lot more fuel to do the same amount of (for example) stair climbing than thin people. If they were to do it.
NASA would love to find living examples of humans who have the sort of metabolisms that will allow them to eat very little while doing harsh daily work outs and still maintain body mass. Such specimens would make deep space travel a lot easier.
Would you like their number so you can get tested?

Parents is exactly where I learned to eat well. My mother can cook, and she did so: good wholesome food. Every week we’d go to the farmer’s market to buy our fruits and vegetables in large quantities. She always rallied against “industrial foods,” and she imposed quotas on our diet: salads every meal, fish twice a week, strict limits on comfort food, etc.

She knows very little about metabolisms, and the effects of syrup or hydrogenated fats, and all that jazz. She just has an old-fashioned sense of what a good, varied diet is, and that’s what she taught us.

You see, “learn to cook” is great advice, but it’s usually derisively ignored with loud imprecations about “patriarchy” and “female oppression” for trying to “tie women into the kitchen.” It’s old-fashioned, outdated. And yet, cooking your own meals from raw ingredients is about the best basis for a diet improvement – it’ll get rid of practically all the awful stuff added to industrial food.

And in that vein:

“Where do you figure people are going to get the information in a way that is credible to them, so that they have a choice?”

You had it right there, and chose to ignore it. Your grandmother did, apparently, not agree with your nutritionist, and you chose to ignore that. There is no point in trying to convince someone in a way that is “credible to them” when they don’t want to be convinced – they’ll underestimate the amounts of crap they’re eating, and suggesting dropping all that crap completely for a whole old-fashioned diet will be met with all kinds of resistance; yes, I’ve tried, there’s only so much I can struggle for someone else’s benefit when they don’t welcome my help.

The incredible thing is how many people will try those fad diets (I’ve seen stuff like “the Pineapple diet,” “the five bite diet,” and so on) but will refuse to hear of an old fashioned diet – too much effort. Credibility? That’s just a front for the resistance to make an effort. There’s got to be an easier way!

This applies to more than fat people, by the way. A friend of mine’s skinny as a rail and kept saying that he just couldn’t bulk up – he had tried and didn’t work. So I told him I could help, gave him a diet and told him to come with me to the gym three times a week to lift – I’d have him running faster than ever for his games of Touch Rugby, no drugs or anything, natural diet and iron pumping. I knew it’d be easy: if I could manage to put some mass on his hamstrings and quads, and give him some drills with Lactic Anaerobic effort level, he’d be running like the wind.

His eyes practically jumped out of his sockets when he saw the diet (I wanted to have him on 200g of protein a day to begin with, hardly an insane amount), and said something to the effect of “well no wonder you bulked up eating like this! I’ll never do something this insane!”

He’s still skinny as a rail and runs out of breath halfway through his matches. I just can’t give him any advice about it, he’ll dismiss it in one form or another and will just refuse to push out of his comfort zone. I don’t know how to be more credible than being 210 pounds with 10% body fat, maybe trade my degree in Molecular Biology for some trendy Nutritionist title somewhere.

Oh, and I didn’t have a clue who that Weston dude was until I googled him just now.

@Retard_Smashing:

“Will any brave “calorie in, calorie out” diet monkey get up on his hind legs and mouth off at me?”

Not sure if this counts as mouthing off, but a slowed metabolism is not an insurmountable obstacle. You pointed out the low levels of iodine, for example, but that and similar factors can be removed with… Wait for it… A good diet.

Once you get that out of the way, you can kickstart the metabolism with adequate exercise.

The remaining ones will be the ones with real metabolic or hormonal disorders, which will warrant a closer look. I doubt it’ll be as many as those who self-proclaim they can’t do anything about it.

A few years ago my diet was terrible. I was upto 180 lbs and was starting to feel the health effects (aches and pains, acid reflux, etc.) I have a relatively small frame and that’s about 15 lbs. over my ideal weight.

So yeah, cutting out certain foods was the first step. I stopped eating takeout pizza and Chinese, as well as sugary cereal that I loved (like Banana Nut clusters.) At first it DID feel like sacrifice, and that’s what I meant above. Now I’ve gotten used to it. Recently I’ve started to eat smaller portions as well. I’m in no danger of a meltdown – my body fat is still hovering close to 20%. I take Calcium and Vitamin D supplements, as well as the occasional Magnesium.

“That’s exactly the opposite of the type of change you should be making to lose weight and be healthier.”

I don’t know. Less fat works for me and my parents. Maybe it’s our genetics. It’s not so much less as to be critical. My serving of breakfast cereal has always been ~ 2.5 standard servings, so switching to 1% milk has helped.

Retard
I have personally measured the at-rest metabolic rate (ie O2 consumption) of hundreds of people. It will vary in the range of plus/minus 10% at most.

I assume Rum meant PER KILOGRAM….. because obviously 350 pound fat people burn more than 150 pound people based on sheer size alone.

Your 10% PER KILOGRAM is a fascinating concept though. Apparently the muscle and organs of the 180 pound athlete use up the exact same amount of calories per kilogram as the 350 pounds of mostly fat of the very overweight individual. Fat consumes as much caloric energy per pound as muscle! Or the beating heart even! And the brain! Yes, the brain to! Or maybe the brain increased proportionally in size to match the gained fat?

Or you have no idea and your test is completely wrong.

Yep. I think I’ll go with that. Your test is BROKEN. Got that? IT DOES NOT WORK. Like the Vitamin D blood serum test a lot of hospitals use.

NASA would love to find living examples of humans who have the sort of metabolisms that will allow them to eat very little while doing harsh daily work outs and still maintain body mass. Such specimens would make deep space travel a lot easier.

Why don’t you go GET FIT!

With the Gwyneth Paltrow program!

Rum, you DID realize before you posted that I had entered a zero tolerance mode right?

Oh, and since my “mock the governments Vitamin D numbers” post has been held up….

before the light bulb, it was trivially easy for an average persons skin to make AT LEAST 2000 IU of Vitamin D a day. The US government views this as a “dangerous overdose” and recommends only 400 IU a day.

“This should disprove the notion (propounded most often by Satoshi Kanazawa at Psychology Today) that women do all the choosing in the dating market. In fact, they don’t. Men actively choose against dating and fucking fat chicks, old chicks, and, in some cases, single moms.”

This is an interesting point.

Women can’t be the only ones doing the choosing for the simple fact that it is men who generally do the approaches. At best, women apply a filter to the men that approach them.

The most that women will generally do to try and select a man they want is to eye fuck him and/or aggressively flit with him.

Sometimes I wish we lived in a parallel universe where women did most of the approaches because then the femi-cunts would be more sympathetic to game. In fact, the hypocritical bitches probably would invent girl game.

I can imagine the conversations the femi-cunts would be having:

“I approached a 7 who was sitting at the bar and opened with a situational opener, but he didn’t seem to want to talk to me and just sat there eye fucking my blond girlfriend. Ugh. Men are so hypergamous.”

Twice as many women as men have genital herpes. This could only happen if a smaller group of infected men is giving the gift of their infectious love to a larger group of women.

No, this is totally false.

No he is right .. Consider a totally uninfected heterosexual population .. and introduce an infected male .. if women are all monogamous .. the infected guy will only infect one woman (and vice verso).. thus in a monogamous population the number of infected partners on either side must be same… Even if the infectant starts out in a woman, it will still be contained if all there exist are monogamous relationships.
Even if the woman only have partner islands (i.e. group of 3 men and five women ) the spread of the infection will still be contained and will result in a balanced infection number.

The only way a larger number of females can get infected is if many sleep with the same guy. This proves conclusively that a larger difference in infected women result from a small number of very active carrier males ..i.e. hypergamy ..

Rum and JB, nobody is saying that people don’t lose weight on a calorie deficit. What we’re saying is that being skinny isn’t the same thing as being healthy, and that the reason people, especially women, are more overweight these days is because they’re malnourished, or rather misnourished…what veterinarians call being “off feed”.

Aside of the fake food, poison, and pollution, the typical dieting strategies will ultimately make them fat or keep them at a constant state of fat or illness waiting to happen. It’ll happen either because of cravings and binges that a person can’t control without a phenomenal amount of willpower, which are natural for any animal that is off feed, including humans; or it’ll happen because of running the body ragged without adequate nutrition.

Another thing the mainstream doesn’t want to talk about is the fact that people of different ethnic backgrounds have different nutritional needs. So long as race exists, which is much more complicated than Black, White, and Asian, we need basically the same vitamins and minerals, but we need different foods to get those needs met. One example: I can eat bell peppers, and it’ll give me plenty of vitamin C and improve my blood circulation, but a western European who eats them is asking for arthritis.

So if low fat is working for you, and you don’t feel like you’re suffering, don’t crave fatty foods but maybe once a month and all, good for you. Not everybody is built like you.

Because of all the issues involved aside of the government wanting us to eat more soy and corn because it’s making someone on the hill lots of money if we do, there’s the ethnicity issue. Nobody wants to be labelled the genocidal villain who tells Black people they can’t have white sugar.

That should have been, “Aside of all the issues involved because of the government wanting us to eat more soy and corn because it’s making someone on the hill lots of money if we do, there’s the ethnicity issue.”

No. Say M/F herpes infected rate is 1/3. If all men and all women have 10 randomly selected partners each, and men are 3x more resistant to herpes than women, then the M/F infection ratio is fully explained by the resistance difference.

His argument only holds if the male resistance advantage is lower than the actual population infection rate. Then we could look at alternate causes such as hypergamy. He has not presented medical evidence of this, but common sense suggests he’s right.

@ Retard Smashing

Let’s be frank. You’re probably a fattie. But you’re right, in that the others are wrong.

Exercise and caloric restriction are not the answer to fat. For many, it’s not merely a question of willpower, at least not without absurd discomfort and health problems.

Fat goes away when people cut the processed and agricultural foods and eat a high meat diet. Period. You don’t need to exercise. You don’t need to limit portions.

I spent too long fighting a civilizational disease, only to have it disappear in a couple of days of the proper diet, not to understand what fat people go through when trying to “diet” and “exercise” while consuming the American diet.

The fuel you put into your body matters. Erasing the impact of bad fuel is not a matter of willpower or lifestyle.

Now I just know some idiot is going to say that too much protein is bad for your kidneys. Check your assumptions, and doublecheck your received credentialed common knowledge. Always.

If you are not into reading lots of fine print, stick
with UNprepared foods (they don’t have to be “organic”).

Fresh meat, fruit, vegetables. If you want to keep
your weight down, just stay away from grain products,
including bread.

Now, you can STILL get fat on lots of fruit etc,
but the problem is now manageable. Common sense
can do the rest.

As a practical matter, a diet “works” only if you
can stay on it, and what you are able to stay on
is partly psychological and individual. Thus, lots
of argument about what the “best” diet might be.
Additionally, there are probably subtle differences
in metabolism from one person to the next.
You must find your own solution, something you can
live with.

@unlearning genius
“The only way a larger number of females can get infected is if many

sleep with the same guy. This proves conclusively that a larger difference in infected women result from a small number of very active carrier males ..i.e. hypergamy ..”

Funny thing is, if you count just heterosexual encounters, the average number of partners MUST NECESSARILY be about the same for men and for women. Each new partnership adds one in each column, and each gets divided by the number of men and women, respectivlely, but the latter are about equal.

(Now, the MEDIAN or in general the distribution can be
quite different, but the AVERAGE must be about equal.)

There is a methodological problem here, and probably deeper issues as well. If somebody can credibly “pretend” to be sane (and I am not saying all people can, not even sure about myself), in what they are they then “really” quite insane? Do we pump them full of scopolamine and ask them to confess that they are being persecuted by Martians? Other? Explain, somebody!

@Mr C
“Anyone with that many assets should demand a pre-nup and get married in a place where the pre-nup applies”

That might not be good enough. You may need to LIVE in a place where the pre-nup is honored. ALTERNATIVELY, if you see a divorce coming (maybe you plan to instigate it, or you can see your partner drifting away), consider MOVING to a jurisdiction that is more favorable to the main wage earner, assuming this is you.
(NOTE: If you are the main wage earner, you have a good shot at forcing a move. Note: This works whether you are a man or a woman!)

–haha. Not condoning cheating here, but the men are sexy down there because they pull cave man game. Love it! Very macho. yum.

also, I love guys who smoke. Stupid? yes. It speaks to my rebel side, can’t help it. No menthol though. In his day, Eddie Vedder had one of the best voices around and it ain’t because he avoided smoking.

I could live without grain if it wasn’t for beer. And I can’t live without beer.

“This is grain, which any fool can eat, but for which the Lord intended a more divine means of consumption. Let us give praise to our Maker, and glory to His bounty, by learning about… BEER!” – Friar Tuck (Robin Hood – Prince of Thieves)

There is a methodological problem here, and probably deeper issues as well. If somebody can credibly “pretend” to be sane (and I am not saying all people can, not even sure about myself), in what they are they then “really” quite insane? Do we pump them full of scopolamine and ask them to confess that they are being persecuted by Martians? Other? Explain, somebody!

Where did the Responsibility go? You know, the endless chanting of Responsibility the little kids can never, ever shut-up about? It has been replaced with their IMAGINATION that BP is doing the best it can. After all, didn’t BP SAY it is doing the best it can? The Tough Minded Conservatives seem to have entered a child-like state where anything they are told by BP they believe.

The mask does seem to be slipping, doesn’t it?

Or the open-minded close-minded animal. Every single unproven…. or PROVEN WRONG conventional idea must be accepted by me… or I at least have to admit that it may be right. On the other hand, every single un-conventional fact… well, they Just Don’t Know. They Just Don’t Know.

They believe in people who aren’t conventional being open-minded…. if they can’t tell that person to SHUT THE F* UP! On the other hand, they are pretty Down To Earth in their absolutely closed mindedness. Down To Earth, Practical, DOGMATIC FANATICS that will never accept anything but the Conventional Truth… and sometimes not even that. As my point about iodine deficiency shows.

The mask of sanity a little askew now? Improper disrespect being shown to the insane loudmouth whack-jobs?

You know, like the calorie in, calorie out crowd? Those lovable jackasses who scream insanity at people with real problems who need real answers? Of course, you could replace over-weight with allergies, sleep-problems, extreme fatigue, or just about any other health problem, and they would act exactly the same way.

I can tell I’ve upset some people. We need some True Free Speech Believers in here! They believe in Free Speech… in your own house, but only when you are alone! They could ban me right quick.

And they really, truly believe they support Free Speech.

Got it now? Has the screaming, tolerant of his own intolerance, open-minded to what he believes, and truly believing in his own tolerance and open-mindedness crazy American with his mask of sanity coming into focus now?

“in what they are they then “really” quite insane?”
should have been
“in what WAY are they then “really” quite insane?”

For the rest, I see great anger, but not clear about
anger at what, except that you seem to really
get off if somebody is on his own parade
instead of joining yours. But I don’t even
know what your parade is.

Oh, and I have two responses in Moderation. Here is the more important part of one:

I believe Rum… who should know better, needs a little lesson about actually thinking about what one is measuring.

I have personally measured the at-rest metabolic rate (ie O2 consumption) of hundreds of people. It will vary in the range of plus/minus 10% at most.

I assume Rum meant PER KILOGRAM….. because obviously 350 pound fat people burn more total calories than 150 pound people based on sheer size alone.

His 10% variance PER KILOGRAM is a fascinating concept though. Apparently the 180 pound athlete who is almost entirely muscles, organs, and brain, uses up the exact same amount of calories per kilogram as the 350 pounds person whose weight is mostly fat. This is a remarkable claim. Fat consumes as much caloric energy per pound as muscle! Or the beating heart even! And the brain! Yes, the brain to! Or maybe the brain increased proportionally in size to match the gained fat?

Or Rum has no idea and his test is completely wrong.

Yep. I think I’ll go with that. The test is BROKEN. Got that? IT DOES NOT WORK. Like the Vitamin D blood serum test a lot of hospitals use.

A few minutes thought should tell anyone that a kilogram of fat, a kilogram of a beating heart, or a kilogram of brain, obviously burn VASTLY DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF ENERGY.

Of course, glucose and fat also create a different amount of energy for the same O2 consumption. Glucose has 6 oxygen atoms per molecule, while fat has none, so that isn’t all that surprising either.

The illegal Mexicans in my state have not only provided cheap labor and increased crime, but they’ve also given the rural & lower-class white chicks that are fat a new supply of suitors. Although us native born descendants of white Europeans were never fond of chunky pieces of tail, the vatos from south of the border seem to have no issue with these desperate porkers. One need to look no further than any rural or semi-rural Labor & Delivery unit in Kentucky to verify.

This hasn’t quite spread to the metropolitan areas yet. The fat white chicks there are still exploiting the black man loophole. This is where an overweight white woman with a typically huge ass and ugly face with bleach-blond hair can still land a skinny to mildly in-shape homeboy. The brothers better be on the look out since the Mexicans are finding success with their own little Game version of Reconquista.

I really must say…HIM and69 eyes are loved of women not b/c of anyones looks or even the lyrics. low/deep voiced singing, toned down guitars mixed w/ rock n roll equals swooning women.

It ain’t even the goth or retarded looking black leather, its the voice…I still feel guilty for not dating a certain local b/c…yes, I am horrifically superfificial…but he had a weak soft voice.

It is ok to hate me, I understand :) How can I date or mate with someone I am not attracted to? Weakness makes me pity the boy thus, how can I respect him, look up to him and want him? Sure, its not his fault, but I’m just saying…(disclosure: due to my religion I’d actually not do the deed I mentioned above – its just too much to ask of me to spend time on someone who is a direct vocal turn off)

As for dark hair and dark eyes…hmm. Men today are mostly ugly tools. I try to see the good in them b/c they do douche bag things thus keeping me single. Oh well. Poor men, they need a woman but sabotage themsevles.

“in what they are they then “really” quite insane?”
should have been
“in what WAY are they then “really” quite insane?”

For the rest, I see great anger, but not clear about
anger at what, except that you seem to really
get off if somebody is on his own parade
instead of joining yours. But I don’t even
know what your parade is.

Thor

Well, you see, “my” parade is in this place called “the real world”. Their parade is in their imaginations.

Like you know, when the Tough Minded Conservative who faces down Irresponsible People every day says this:

I hadn’t heard the going off tidbit but I’ve heard plenty of similar sentiments and immediately thought how ignorant the statements were. You can only do what you know how to do and have the capability of doing. Going into some sort of fit of rage or agggression isn’t going to help.

I imagine BP is doing what it can at the moment.

In “How does “going off” help”.

He IMAGINES that BP is doing what it can at the moment.

He is using his powerful IMAGINATION! How wonderful! Maybe we should get the Tough Minded Conservative, the Facts Only Ma’am, some crayons so he can draw us a picture of what he IMAGINES BP to be doing right now!

All other “Tough Minded Conservative” on that thread simply take for granted that BP is doing the best it can….. BECAUSE. Proof not required for these child-like innocents!

Of course, they still can’t shut up about RESPONSIBILITY:

It’s similar to his ‘just plug the damn hole’ comment. I believe it was Rush who commented “Does he honestly think BP hasn’t thought of that?”

It’s the classic response of someone who is clueless because they’ve never been responsible for actually accomplishing anything in their entire lives.

Only in this case, those complaining about BP’s obvious and blatant irresponsibility are merely showing THEIR OWN LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY. Cause someone who was REALLY RESPONSIBLE… you know, like a Tough Minded Conservative, would NEVER EVER HOLD BP responsible!

Now, what is my real world answer to this? My “imagination” imagines that BP is not actually the single best company in the entire world to handle this problem. It “imagines” this because it is almost certainly true. As in 95+ percent chance. Step two is to demand that BP put someone else in charge. Now, BP would then lose information control, and would probably have to pay more money.

Ask me if I care. Now, I’m willing to accept other “parades”, provided they are in the REAL WORLD, and offer REAL SOLUTIONS.

“I’ve read about making raw meat and or eggs a daily part of “one’s diet. ”

@Paul – the final frontier is not raw meat but all meat. I’m pretty sure you’re evolutionarily adapted to fire. I’ve been eating fatty meat exclusively and there is no further room for improvement in my health.

Gawd… More mental masturbation. Just get out in the field and pull. It all really is very simple. What is hard for us less-than-naturals is not to slip into beta supplicating mode at one step or the other. Just experience few good alpha leads and you’d understand. Never considered myself that good looking, rather insecure in fact, but if I don’t slip, I pull with just my blue eyes stare in minutes. But then I go beta “it’s too early, we spoke about her job for 5 minutes and she’s asking how far I live from here” and some other guy pulls her from me. Well, “who hesitates (mentally) masturbates”.

Paul, I’m not totally on raw food, but I do try to get some raw meat in once or twice a month. I have to go to a shop where they get the meat from grass fed cows. There are a few farms here that do that. The meat is expensive, but worth it.

I still have trouble swallowing a sinewy or fatty cut except along the ribs. A thinly sliced raw fillet though, is pure heaven. I don’t even need salt.

Realist, I honestly don’t think everybody needs grains. Some people are adapted to better use carbohydrates and fiber from root vegetables or just fruit and vegetables. The trick is to get the right ones.

Try a couple of weeks eating fibrous vegetables like celery, greens, and such. Two weeks won’t kill you if it’s not right for you, but it’s enough time to see if it’s doing your digestion some good.

Sweet potatoes and spinach is one of my favorite dishes. Sweat a chopped onion, throw in a thick sliced sweet potato and some spinach, add water and some gray salt, and boil it until it’s soft. Good eating, plenty of carbs, but no pooptastic grain hulls.

I believe in moderation in all things for those who can tolerate all things. Some folks though, should avoid certain things altogether. For some people, no good can come from the vast majority of grains. Some people can have them so long as they’re balanced with other things.

I used to have IBS. Since I drastically reduced my wheat intake, that disappeared, so I’m sure my colon is much happier now that grains are a much smaller proportion of my diet.

@JB
Anecdotes are hard science now?? 3 of my grandparents smoked for a large portion of their lives, none of them got lung cancer, does that negate all correlation between smoking and lung cancer? likewise does this dude’s story negate all correlation between meat consumption and colon cancer? please explain further.

Yeah and there was an indian dude claiming he didn’t eat ANYTHING for 60 years whoop dee doo dah.
I was just taking that site kind of seriously until i saw the links to the Atkin’s diet at the bottom of the page. Are you a really overweight woman?
what world are you living in? Have you ever competed in any physical activity in your life? Have you seen eskimo’s tearing up the world stage at any sport?
I used to box to a pretty high standard, and not once in my life did i or would i ever consider stepping into the ring on an all meat diet, however slimline i needed to be to make weight. That is one way to get yourself knocked the fuck out.

Until medical doctor’s, top level sportsman and REAL nutritionists start to follow your suit i think i’m going to stick with my own abjectly and demonstrably wrong theories thank you.

Are you aware of the demonstrable differences between a human’s and a lion’s digestive system?

Clue: You are NOT a lion.

@Nicole

Iv’e nothing against meat i eat alot of it and at what point was i promoting grains? Nuts and beans are not grains and contain protein, fibre and minerals that are good for you. White flour is also linked to colon cancer so i don’t eat it. An all meat diet is an insane proposition, aside from the havock it would cause your digestive system and kidneys it would also make your breath and bodily fluids rank smelling.

CH – you are a very smart man……… but your “ugly people commit crime theory” and the psycho-babble lunatics who peddle this crap are full of hot air. When society determines someone is attractive, they not only forgive these people their crimes, they also inadvertantly allow these so-called handsome and beautiful creatures the privelage of creating the laws and deciding legality. This is why that gourgeous blonde at the club last night can snort tons of blow in the bathroom and if some cop or bouncer ever has the audacity to bust her, at worst, she will be sent to some rehab near the West Palm Beach and the poor bloke who sold it to her will get sentenced to 20 years. Its the same reason, we cant legally snort blow or smoke pot in the first place unlike smoking tobacco which kills people at ten thousand times the rate. We were sold on the merits of tobacco by pretty people who said it shouldnt be illegal. Legality is determined by the wealthy elites for generations. 90% of the US prison population is in jail for drugs but the “pretty” users have helped brand drug use as some sort of victimization from nasty ugly drug dealers. Its the same game.

About the brown eyed guys have less trustworthy and therefore more sexy comments, it is true that there is a proven genetic basis for being trustworthy, and that Northern Europeans are up to their knees in these genes.

For chrissakes, it’s not the eyes that are determinants of attractiveness, it’s the faces of people that have certain colors of eyes, independent of the actual color of their eyes. People with blue eyes tend to have more feminine faces, and its these faces that are less attractive. Correlation versus causation: you guys are blaming umbrellas for causing the rain.

Furthermore, practical experience suggests that ceteris paribus having blue eyes is more attractive. I’ve slayed several chicks with my color-shifting blue-green-grey eyes. In general I agree with the viewpoints expressed by most in this blog, but it’s concerning to see people misunderstand a point and then try to bring up anecdotal evidence to supposedly support it; it’s a bad precedent.

@ Sniper
I’m afraid I have to disagree with you that intimacy isn’t vaginal sex..we’re talking about relationships here not hook ups :-) But I agree that someone you’re involved with surreptiously keeping an eye on your cycles without your knowledge could be a bit creepy.

BTW, I didn’t say timing-based BC, I said NFP, they are different. The former is quite unreliable, the latter is extremely effective. Some strong supporters of it did a great experiment in China which is not quite so influenced by the pharmaceutical industry pushing birth control pills.
“in a recent trial in China 992 couples using the Billings Method were compared to 662 couples using the IUD. The method-related pregnancy rate amongst Billings users was zero and the total pregnancy rate was 0.5%.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billings_ovulation_method

The eye color goes hand in hand with shapes of the face.
Those without nordic colored eyes, as we already know, are less trustworthy, than those with, through a genetic basis.
It is highly likely that this genetic basis for trust is showing up in eye color and facial features.
It is hugely likely that women prefer to fuck untrustworthy men.
And marry the blue eyed guys.

A whole animal diet definitely works for me (“whole animal” in every sense of the word “whole”, that). However, there is a definite difference between grass-fed and other meats. Vegetarians and vegans are the most delicious, and the most healthy.

Not all of us get raging PMS and the increased libido is pretty subtle. In other words, it doesn’t turn women into salivating horndogs for three days and then into gorilla-stomping nazis the next week.

@ Lily

If any woman’s ovulation was really that easy to figure out by spotting the tampon wrappers in the bathroom trash and timing it from then, I imagine timing-based BC would be much more effective. I don’t mind if he asks but I’d find it creepy if he’s more conscious of it than I am (to the point of setting up little traps like his massage ritual to see if I’m cheating or “frigid” to him).

@ polymath

I don’t see what my period has to do with intimacy. Intimacy != vaginal sex.

If brown eyed men make women so wet, what is the predominate eye color of men in Hollywood? Are these not the men women all over the world are lusting over? If the scales are so much in favor of the brown eyed man when it comes to lustful sex, wouldn’t you would think most of these guys would be brown eyed to inspire those tingles in women??

And I have no idea what the predominate eye color is, but is there no correlation at all? I mean if I’m producing a soap opera I want mostly brown eyed guys, right Xsplat?

People with brown eyes in high latitudes just die out from lack of vitamin D. We forget about rickets today. O.J. Simpson had rickets. So, you just wouldn’t want a brown eyed person to procreate with in the higher latitudes, before they fortified food with vitamin D. Like, who wants a kid with rickets?

Once the light skinned people with blue eyes stop subsidizing the brown people with brown eyes (think Haiti), brown eyes might not seem like such a great thing.

Anyway, CH is right on most of the stuff he posts about.

Look at what happened to Tiger Woods. His wife essentially blackmailed him for 750 million dollars. If anybody else tried to shake him down like that, it would be a serious crime. Notice that many woman cheer her on. Marriage is for losers. This cannot be repeated too often.

Andrew, you are arguing from anecdote. Are you suggesting that the eye color study was wrong? Because of hollywood actors?

You really hate book learnin’, don’tcha. All those crazy evolutionists and their theories of genetically based dual sexual mating strategies just chaffe your nipples. Game theory must bore you also, as it isn’t a morality play.

This comment about the blue eyes makes me worry about his insight into human nature. I don’t understand where he goes off saying that somehow Vikings and ancient Germans were more cooperative than Chinese or Hindu? All of a sudden a guy named Sanjeet who works in IT has “dominant eyes” but Dolph Lundgren or a Polish nordic who looks like Marius Pudzianowski is a North Euro milquetoast? Bobby Jindal makes women wet with his big brown eyes?

Most of what you guys say about “high cooperation” “high trust” and this kind of thing among men of North European background applies to post-WW2 Western Europe and America, to blue-eyed and to brown-eyed equally, where men have become weird. Evolutionary sociobiology has a place but when you practice it in ignorance of history you make yourself look like a fool. North Euro Vikings or the Germanic Conans that Tacitus describes weren’t “highly cooperative high trust” beta providers or whatever you guys like to think about them. It was a piratical, individualistic martial culture like you see Homer.

{editor: if you read the link to the study i provided, you’ll see that the correlation to dominance was not with the eye color specifically, but with the shape of face. brown eyed WHITE men (not indians or chinese) had facial features that were described as more dominant looking. but brown eyed participants who had their eye color digitally altered to blue still retained their attractiveness to women. the brown eye color was simply a proxy for facial phenotypic dominance; whatever genes make white men brown eyed also makes their faces more dominant looking.]

!= indeed, but that is only because I was trying to use polite language.

The basic point still holds, someone whom you have sex with regularly over a period of months will be able to figure out your cycle if he cares to simply by paying attention, without any snooping or creepiness. Furthermore, this is a good thing, a man who is aware of his lover’s moods is more likely to get along well with her.

An awful lot of fights would be avoided if it occurred to either the man or the woman that PMS was currently relevant. If you are fortunate enough to not have big mood swings, all the better, but isn’t it preferable in general for a man to be in tune with you rather than oblivious?

After what CH just wrote to blueyedevil I now understand the study. But again, giving that Hollywood is mostly about giving women tingles, or at least a good a portion of it is based on that, wouldn’t most of these guys be naturally brown eyed??

If you are interested in the concept of the character or personality types of North Europeans, I suggest you do some reading up on history instead of quoting bs parlor-game studies and sounding like a cretin.

Can anyone reading the Icelandic sagas or source material written by OTHER PEOPLES (Greeks, Romans) about ancient Nordics recognize the “high trust” rule-followers (as if the two were the same thing…you’re wrong about that too) milquetoasts you describe?

What scientific studies? And why should I trust a study that plainly contradicts common sense and observation? Why won’t you answer my question about “high trust” cooperative rule-following Vikings? Is it because it would make you look like the weird Asperger-afflicted pedant you are?

You can run, but you can’t hide. The days of social constructivism are as historical as your frame.

The reason I don’t debate with you about the Vikings is because that is 100000% irrelevant to the studies that I mention. Social constructo-tard, with the magical powers of wishful thinking based on anectode and social studies.

Science wins.

I love it when constructo tards look stupid. Almost as much as their use of words irritates me. The dissimulation has a Polack painting spew beauty to it, in a puke kind of way.

You see, one thing we have inherited from the ages past is the Icelandic Sagas, which have reached our times with little alteration and a rich tradition in Icelandic society. I recommend you start with Njal’s Saga, if you want to take a look at the kind of society the old northerners lived in, there are English translations available.

Extended clans/families with communal living and a strong letter of the law? Believe it or not, yes.

You were asking about cooperativism of the old Vikings, don’t move the goalposts. If you are indeed familiar with the sagas, you’d know that there was plenty. Extended clans, “servants” being pretty much part of the group, heck in many of the sagas there isn’t that much bad blood when one of the vikings killed another if there was a good enough reason.

Sure, they dueled to the death.

So did pretty much every society until… Well, until quite recently, in fact.

However, pillaging was done on foreign lands, not against the locals, and Gunnar’s wife wasn’t exactly held as a shining example of womanliness (well, she was apparently quite hot).

Yes, they were rather rough people. No, you’re wrong about the society being a cesspool of individual, free-for-all mayhem.

And it’s still purely academic, it has no bearing upon the whole discussion anyway, but it’s fun to point how wrong you are.

You can keep repeating “social constructivist” and other words you learned on the internet but in the end what’s a “frame”? You’re saying you don’t want to answer common sense? Again explain how Vikings or the people Tacitus describes in his Germania have anything to do with the “high-trust” rule-following “beta providers” you’re talking about.

Science? I believe in science. Math, physics, etc.; not what you do. Some dipshit grad student did a survey of “personality tests” in a Nokia branch in Helsinki and I’m supposed to dismiss common sense and history?

Here’s some science for you. This map shows the incidence of light colored eyes in Europe,

As you can see the largest part of this map that has the highest incidence of blue eyes is probably northwest Russia/the Baltic states/north Poland. Are you seriously saying that people from those countries are what you described them to be? Oh and who did studies of “personality traits” in those areas and decided that there’s a high frequency of “high trust” “high cooperation” people living there?

To the other guy…ALL tribes have “extended clans/families with communal living and strong letter of the law,” ESPECIALLY Western subsaharan Africa. That’s about a perfect description of “it takes a village” African cultures. Without precise definitions of what you mean by “high trust,” etc. and the other words you guys use, you can manipulate them to mean anything. The fact is that north European culture used to be far more individualistic/competitive and martial than what you found elsewhere during the same periods, and it was radically different from what you find there right now.

Xsplat, I’m not saying that the study is wrong because of Hollywood actors. I am saying if this study is right it would make sense that the majority of white male actors in an industry built almost entirely on sex appeal would be brown eyed.

If they are the best looking as you and this study claim, it would make sense wouldn’t it fuck face??

Keep in mind that muscle is a big storage pool for carbs after a meal. Insulin works by recruiting glucose transport proteins to lie against the muscle cell membrane, and suck up the glucose from your blood. If your muscles are not active, small, or already packed with glycogen, the muscle cells will essentially ignore the signal from insulin, thus, you have insulin resistance, at least at the muscle cell level. So, the glucose gets converted into fat in the liver. This is bad.

It has been shown, repeatedly, that fasting and exercise improve glucose tolerance. Nobody wants to hear that because people are lazy and want to eat all the time.

So, to lose weight, increase you muscle mass (pump iron), use your muscles, and skip meals. Anybody can go for 12 hours without eating much. That will deplete your muscle glycogen reserves and make your muscles much more sensitive to insulin.

It really isn’t complicated. This worked great for me.

I work out for 20 minutes about 3 times in a good week, watch what I eat (Don’t let your wife cook for you.) and I stay in excellent shape. I have an excellent biochemical profile (glucose and lipid) with a family background rampant with Type II diabetes.

Keeping healthy is like gaming girls. You just have to know the rules, and stick to them.

@RMMWhile the overall point that your observations don’t contradict the general idea of social cooperation, the tone was not very appropriate.

I never contradicted the social cooperation point. The Norse were remarkable for being savage, bloodthirsty murderers and butchers with a tendency to kill and enslave first and not bother asking questions.

Of course, they also founded empires and were the Marco Polos (if Marco Polos with small armies and a nasty grimace) of their day.

How many cultures can found Kievan Rus, sack Rome (or something they thought was Rome), found kingdoms in northern France, slaughter and repopulate half the British Isles, create organized industrial warfare camps in primeval forests, settle Newfoundland and Greenland and work gold like masters, all while barely comprehending writing?

Once they settled down they may have developed high-trust societies, but in the cauldron of social collapse and the maelstrom of death and disease that was A.D. 450-800, they were still savage, half-wild barbarians.

They *did* settle down awfully quick after that, though.

Actually, I won’t dispute that this group of cultures may have been high-trust, on some level, internally. But not all of them.

One way they may have managed this was by exporting their dangerous, single young males during the time they were 15-25 years old, and letting them inflict their surplus testosterone on other cultures. If these men died, who cared? If they won, well, more power to them.

Maybe we should consider that ourselves. All these young criminals, just suit them up, give them some longboats and point them in the direction of, what, Somalia?

”””””Rum
Retard
I have personally measured the at-rest metabolic rate (ie O2 consumption) of hundreds of people. It will vary in the range of plus/minus 10% at most.
The important energy burn is from non-at-rest situations. And fat people burn a lot more fuel to do the same amount of (for example) stair climbing than thin people. If they were to do it.
NASA would love to find living examples of humans who have the sort of metabolisms that will allow them to eat very little while doing harsh daily work outs and still maintain body mass. Such specimens would make deep space travel a lot easier.
Would you like their number so you can get tested?
””””””””
I can run ten miles a day on a bowl of cereal he he he

…Once they settled down they may have developed high-trust societies, but in the cauldron of social collapse and the maelstrom of death and disease that was A.D. 450-800, they were still savage, half-wild barbarians.

The list of accomplishments that led up to this paragraph led me to believe that the conclusion was that this group of people were already of high trust and social cohesiveness. Brutal in method, and in aims, but accomplished through verbal contracts and intense group solidarity.

History lessons aside, the studies about the heritability of trustworthiness and the predisposition to trust others are rather clear cut. You test people with or without certain genes.

I’ve already mentioned that the two conservative moral values of purity and authority are heritable.

We are going to find more and more of such studies in the future.

It seems the fact of differences itself pisses a lot people off. Not commu-tard enough for them, I guess. The fact that they have genetic underpinnings? People are going to be apoplectic.

Well, the Viking/Norse population was indeed high-trust,
mainly they had to be because of the weakness of
central institutions. This did not prevent them from
being violent to outsiders (as were most cultures,
the Vikings were merely very good at it.).

I enclose a true story (with one exception, which you are
challenged to find).

STORY OF ICELAND

Iceland has a long (but long lost) tradition of being an offshore haven.

Around year 900 or so, Harald Tanglehair had finally conquered enough that he decided it was “all of Norway” (not too well defined until then), and he cut his hair and beard and became known as Harald Fairhair (Hårfagre
in Scandinavian). So he sent heralds throughout the land, explaining to all the people his new subjects that they were to swear him fealty and pay taxes.

Most of them did, but some hardy souls thought this was just beyond the pail and could not be suffered. Their solution was to set sail for Iceland, abandoning everything that could not be put on shipboard, and homesteading
on Iceland, which was unpopulated at the time.

Thus, an early offshore tax haven was established. Seriously (although they did not themselves think of it in those terms, especially not as being “early”, of course).

They gathered once a year at the Althing, where matters were sorted out and disputes were settled. The one (part-time) government functionary, the lagsagoman (“law saying man”) would say a third of the law in rotation,
(one third each year). If he forgot something and nobody corrected him, this constituted a sunset clause.

The law was basically Nordic Common Law (not very different from Anglo-Saxon Common Law), where most things that are now considered crimes were at the time
considered civil offenses, that were settled with compensation to the victims, or the victim’s family if the offense was murder. (Yup, murder was a civil offense
IF immediately reported, but the compensatory damages were high, basically up to and including supporting the victim’s family). For the few offenses that were truly CRIMES, as performed by a niðing, the punishment was usually to be declared an outlaw. This was serious, and meant not what some people erroneously think today (a man hiding from the law) but quite the reverse, a person from whom the law was hiding, i.e. there was open season on this person. Given that the underlying offense was serious, being “outlawed” carried a major impact
on life expectancy.

(Often, this punishment was tempered by a lower and sometimes an upper time limit, the former usually of the order of a month; it was understood that the offender if he had any sense would use this time to get out of Dodge.
One famous such person was Erik the Red, who had killed several people; he settled Greenland with a few friends. Oh, and his son settled lands further west, now known as Newfoundland. The son was known as Leif Eriksson, you have heard of him. And, by the way, Newfoundland was called Vinland because it had grape vines growing wild due to the medieval warm period.)

Anyway, the system worked tolerably well, despite some nasty family feuds, rich material for Icelandic sagas; these people were no choir boys, choir boys don’t undertake such moves across a nasty North Atlantic Ocean. Another thing, at year 1000 it was settled at the Althing that the population would study and learn Icelandic as opposed to Norwegian.

This essentially Libertarian (again, using anachronistic terminology) system was broken a few hundred years later when the Danish Navy showed up and annexed Iceland to Denmark. During WWII, Germany occupied Denmark, and because of that, the UK preemptively occupied Iceland. After WWII, Iceland became independent but had by that time been cut off from its roots of despising central authority, and had – and still has – European-style high taxes.

Oh, one statement above is risible and utterly false. Spotting it is left as an exercise.

You’re all playing a bait-and-switch game here. Loyalty to clan or group is not the same thing as “high trust,” “highly cooperative,” etc. and the other things you mention. Arabs and Pakistanis are extremely loyal to the clan, and subsaharan West Africans even more so. Until you define what you mean but “high trust” and these other words it’s clear you can keep changing the definition every time someone contradicts you with common sense evidence.

Again, xsplat was claiming that blue eyed men are seen as rule-following, high-trust, etc., beta-providing essentially milquetoasts and that this was reflected in their genes and women could see it, which is why they prefer sneaky brown-eyed men. Aside from the fact this is obviously ridiculous, this also doesn’t square with what we know about nordics historically, and it doesn’t fit with what we know about most blue eyed people now:

The truth is that these supposedly scientific studies are nothing of the sort, it’s some dumbass grad student passing out personality tests to office workers in Stockholm and then trying to correlate results with genetic testing. I’m not a “social constructivist” but I don’t think this is good science or that xsplat can even properly define “purity” and “authority,” or what he means by “conservative values.”

To understand personality traits of nordics you have to compare their culture historically to the culture, say, of Chinese, Koreans, West African tribes, etc., and be able to distinguish between loyalty to clan or tribe, law-abindingness, etc., since these things are not all the same. The fact that you follow a feudal lord loyally doesn’t mean you also follow the law or that you are easily fooled by women. European cultures historically are the least “group-oriented” of any in the world in my opinion. “High-trust” group-oriented people tend mostly to stay at home and do nothing. The Chinese or West Africans are a good example.

Another study showed that fat chicks get laid more often than average weight chicks. From anecdotal experience, I believe that study more. As I see fat chicks with normal boyfriends all the time.

Maybe this study you mention is based on *obese* and morbidly obese chicks, not fat? Because the other study showed that fat girls get laid the most. The explanation is that since they are fat, they feel a greater need of getting validation from men by sleeping with them.

This shows that Satoshi is right, and women do the choosing. Men choose from the women they’ve been chosen by. Other studies also confirm that women are the ones doing the choosing.

There was an experiment with hidden camera at a club. They filmed people hooking up. Afterwards, they interviewed the guys, and the guys talked a big game of what they did to “get the” woman, what they said or did that got her, and how they choose her.

The truth? The cameras showed that in every single succesful pick up, it was the “picked up woman” who initiated and decided to be picked up by the man. She positioned herself in his line of sight, adjusted herself (while faking indifference and not directly looking at him, while turning her body towards his line of sight). Interviews show the woman chose the man 5-10 minutes before he even noticed her.

“Game” is how men backwards-rationalize why they picked up a woman. In truth, they picked her up, because she chose to be picked up by them.

Bluedevil, you are mildly amusing to make fun of, and instructive as to how the dissimulating mind works, but server no other purpose to me. I’m not interested in trying to force you to see the meaning of my actual words, and to correct your lies about what I am saying.

Frankly, my life is better keeping people like you out of it.

You remind me of females with BPD – extreme dissimulation to the point of denying any reality that bothers you.

Gorb:
…Once they settled down they may have developed high-trust societies, but in the cauldron of social collapse and the maelstrom of death and disease that was A.D. 450-800, they were still savage, half-wild barbarians.

Xsplat:
The list of accomplishments that led up to this paragraph led me to believe that the conclusion was that this group of people were already of high trust and social cohesiveness. Brutal in method, and in aims, but accomplished through verbal contracts and intense group solidarity.

History lessons aside, the studies about the heritability of trustworthiness and the predisposition to trust others are rather clear cut. You test people with or without certain genes.

The major point is at the bottom.

And this kind of Nordic behavior is well-attested in every culture region everywhere on Earth, down to Papua New Guinea, the 4th major locus for the development of agriculture and one of the most ethnically/linguistically/economically (in terms of agriculture) diverse places on Earth.

Some of these have equally impressive records:
Iroquoians of eastern North America, down to the Cherokee, come to mind first. Highly complex government and social structures based almost solely on high trust levels; clan-based social structures; extremely aggressive, almost imperialistic, to outsiders, relatively democratic to insiders; relatively liberal enslavement policies; extreme levels of tight-knit organization; great social mobility, as among the Norse; long oral legal traditions with high levels of competence; extensive trade networks that relied on honor, trust and fairness, as well as a well-regulated and widely appreciated legal system.

Both peoples (Norse, Iroquoians) were feared by their neighbors but also deeply respected. They were brutal and savage in battle but internally very effective at social-order and society building.

The similarities between the two culture zones is striking.

And not a blue eye among the Indians. Which means there might have been other genetic signals, and there may still be other genetic signals out there right now.

For edification, some other more or less similar areas:

The Pueblo peoples of the South-West; the Mexica, from barbarians to empire-builders in 200 years (Aztec peoples); the Chichimec; the Chima of South America;

Tribal Iron-Age West Africa; among the Khoi-San of South Africa; among the historical Mongols and Huns, as well as the Moguls (also Mongols);

The Khmer peoples, before they were dominated by the Thai, maybe even after.

Places where these things do not apply to similar culture zones:

Afghanistan (white people/Caucasians, with lots of admixture from Asia); virtual absence of high-trust behavior on every level. Can be called the classic case.

Albania: White people, core European ethnic group, but bogged down in Vendetta culture for 1500 years, until the last century;

North Africa, low-trust area even under Islam.

Medieval Greece.

Southern Italy and all of Spain: Spanish colonization is striking in Mexico.

The Spanish de-civilized most of Mexico. The local indigenous inhabitants lived in very high-trust societies. To this day, the indigenous peoples of places like Chiapas and Oaxaca and Yucatan are high-trust societies (internally), but the Spanish culture that has dominated these areas is markedly not, and has truly fucked up all of the local social systems.

Blue Eyes / Facial Features

In every part of the world, even in places where there were no blue eyes, high-trust societies emerged.

Assuming that we can use features to determine potential high-trust individuals at all, this means that there have to be other genetic factors used as shorthand to determine high-trust potential other than the Blue-Eyes / Facial Features genetic complex.

Perhaps identifying these other features would assist in determining if the Blue-Eyes/Facial Features gene set has anything to do with it.

Gorb, the studies I mentioned simply make a one to one correlation with a certain gene (or set of genes, I forget), and the relative level of assumption of trust, and point out that this gene is more common among northern Europeans. As I recall it is not universal amongst Northern Europeans.

Genes often encode for a host of traits, so for instance a cowlick can be associated with heart disease. It would be unsurprising if whatever encodes for blue eyes also affected facial features – in fact the study R mentioned suggests this. And it would be unsurprising if personality traits were also involved.

Other genes could have similar influences, or in the end effect similar results. It would be interesting to study the Iroquois specifically to see the gene distribution for the studied genes.

I’m making a guess that the brown eyed faces send a signal of not being bound by trust, to women of European descent. It could be that they send a signal of dominance. It could be that the two traits are interdependent. I’m aware that those with blue eyes are more likely to have this gene that affects assumed trust, and so it seems a good guess that this is at least part of what is subconsciously communicated.

Considering that we already know that women do prefer to fuck guys with low levels of trustworthiness, this is a correlation strong enough to put forward this guess.

“Tall dark and handsome” does have a grounding in what really does more tend to attract women.”

Yeah, but this doesn’t necessarily apply if you’re a female with dark hair. I have some capacity to say, “Ok, he appears handsome.” (of dark haired, dark featured guys) But the last thing I’d want to do is procreate with someone who could pass for my brother. Maybe that’s why you see so many black haired male/female blonde pairs.

xsplat,
“Frankly, my life is better keeping people like you out of it.” …I wasn’t aware this forum was your life. This problem–Asperger’s–may also explain your general inability to answer any of my very simple points here. I will ask you again, what about the Vikings or ancient Germans, and what about the modern Poles, Northwest Russians, and Baltics? How do they fit your model of “blue-eyed” “personality traits”?

Repeating “social constructivist” and “reality-based” over and over again is not “making fun of me” or “wit” by the way…just shows you’re kind of a moron.

Legitimate genetic studies exist, I don’t believe though that you’re qualified to interpret them. You talk like a tard about “conservative values,” “purity,” “authority” “high trust” as if you even knew what these were. It’s clear your ignorance of human history and behavior is so thorough from your inability to say anything to Gorbachev or me.

Gorbachev–
People have attempted to classify personality traits/looks for a long time, and in some cases have done so successfully. Liberals and others have tried to dismiss these often intuitive classifications with the word “stereotype” but statistical, genetic, etc., and other studies prove that stereotypes are often accurate, especially about men and women and relations between the sexes. But isn’t it telling how in all of human history there has been NO stereotype about behavior of those with light-colored eyes vs. those with brown eyes? There have been (consistent across history) stereotypes about blacks, about Europeans, etc., and in some cases these may be true, but nothing that has to do with blue vs. brown eyes.

Your historical examples also demonstrate this. But, again, within your historical examples there is much confusion because you can argue either way about “high trust” in any of the cases you mention. Trust between who? You mention Albania as a low-trust example of vendetta culture, but isn’t there trust within the family/clan? Does “high trust” refer to ability to live within a modern centralized state that honors contracts between individuals, and having effective third party arbitration? Does it refer to loyalty to a clan leader? To family members? And so on…also I believe your characterization of the Iroquois by the way is rather PC, and you’re wrong on Spanish culture.

Any modern studies that depend on personality tests given out to modern citizens asked how they “feel” about “high trust” in their societies are basically worthless from an evolutionary point of view, as the modern managerial state is no more than 70 years or so old.

But even just looking at modern times, in the end there is the problem of the radical personality/political difference between Russians, Baltics, Poles, etc., on one hand and Scandinavians on the other. This xsplat dummy has been trying to ignore that basic point, like the scheming female he is :P

also I believe your characterization of the Iroquois by the way is rather PC, and you’re wrong on Spanish culture.

I don’t disagree with most of what you say – high and low trust is all a relative thing. A lot of high trust societies are that way because they wouldn’t function without being that way, due to the lack of centralized authority. You’re right.

But about the Iroquoians, while there’s a lot of PC talk about them, they truly were one of the more interesting cultural subsets anywhere on Earth. An imperial, expansionist culture, profoundly violent to outsiders, with an active and aggressive slave trade; a deeply hierarchical culture, but with avenues for social mobility. They invented an economy that supported what were, for all intents and purposes, fully mobile towns, on a scale larger than villages – the only culture in recorded history to have done this – and had an incredibly complex political culture.

Benjamin Franklin and others wrote lots about them. The idea of federal-state-municipal 3-tiered government was fully swiped from the Six Nations (then 5). The Cherokee provided lots of inspiration, too, including central government labor taxation, among other things.

But the PC shit: The Iroquoians were savagely violent to outsiders, and there was a whole class and culture of expansionist conquerors devoted to unprovoked violence to anyone not part of the group. Their inhumane and brutal treatment of captives was well-known.

In a troublesome world, smart people high-tailed it when they even thought Mohawks might be near.

All of this calculated savagery from the same people who composed delicate, beautiful poetry, performed political oratory to rival Greece and Rome, and could have debated political issues with the best men of the modern age.

A whole continent of genetic diversity was wiped out because there was no resistance to disease. What a loss.

Who knows what cool gene maps could have been made with an untrammeled and spoiled population of native North Americans. The loss was huge.

Imagine the scope of debate we could have about genetic traits if 50-plus distinct culture/racial zones still existed, with associated male/female mating patterns.

> Twice as many women as men have genital herpes. This could only happen if a smaller group of infected men is giving the gift of their infectious love to a larger group of women. Looks like female hypergamy is conclusively proved.

Logic fail. It may just as well be that women are far more likely to get infected upon exposure which looking at the biology involved would seem to be quite likely. Besides, it is still not conclusively proven if herpes is always infectious or just some times of the year, so there is another variable to look at. Maybe women are less disposed towards having sex when they are infectious?

“Another thing, at year 1000 it was settled at the Althing that the population would study and learn Icelandic as opposed to Norwegian.”

Risible and utterly false because at that time in history Old Norse had not yet diverged into its daughter languages (including Norwegian and Icelandic), and because a modern education system teaching children their language in school did not yet exist. Exercise completed.